ummm at least at my two high school I Go to i Say its about 50/50 and I live in the uppe r middle class area closer to Washinton DC. (Prince William county). I feel like there are less virgins in the deeper south because of the high school in the countryish area is oretty bad

You're welcome Anon! Other facts:
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson are all president from VA which is known as the "Mother of Presidents"

The cycles of humanity continue to move on
everyone applauds at the progress
but how long before our countries are gone
and everyone goes back to being lawless

Today we strive to love and think it will last forever
but tomorrow we hate again and say love we will never
Push and push your beliefs, but this age will end
with brand new beliefs in the age that's yet to begin

If you are curious I'm sure i could post a link to figures and findings.

Don't assume something clearly evident in nature is unnatural on your own biases and subjective conclusions. Human assumption lacks the veracity required when dealing with themes such as biological adaptation.

I'm sorry I have to disagree, being straight is natural. In the sense that it is the natural biological evolution of our species, to be attracted to a mate of different gender so as to promote procreation. So homosexuality therefore is biologically and evolutionarily* unnatural.

The fact that it exists proves that it is natural. There is no such thing as an unnatural gene, every gene that still exists is there because it helps, or at least doesn't hinder, an individual's chance at passing on genetic information. The relatives of gays are more fertile than exclusively heterosexual families, meaning that the existence of the gene that causes homosexuality also contributes to a higher rate of procreation. That is what I was trying to say.

That is an interesting point, and even more interesting if it is valid. If you have a source I would be interested in reading about which genes promote homosexuality, and the statistics about more fertile relatives of homosexuals. And even if there is a high correlation I can not conceive any logical biological connection between the homosexuality genes of one person and the fertility genes of a relative. Also I would like to point out the logical fallacy that just because it exists means it in natural. Urban cities and tall skyscrapers exist, but that does not mean they are natural. The natural evolution of Earth never intended for the likes of human development. Therefore making such things unnatural.

I was only applying that point to genetics, though. Evolution is generally accepted as natural, meaning that if a trait came to be through evolution, it is natural for it to exist. As for the source, I originally read it in a random Cracked article, but I had to find another source because I couldn't remember which article it was.
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html This is the other source I found.

Your argument would imply that we have evolved into a homosexual species. That the genes didn't exist before but now they do, and we a re better off. This is in fact false, as homosexuality has been evidenced throughout history, in rare cases. The fact that it was rare back then, and rather rare now suggests that it is not an evolutionary process, but rather a genetic defect. That's like saying the genetic deformities that occur from Incestuous relations are natural because biology dictated this. While it occurred biologically, physical and mental deformities are far from natural.

Homosexual tendencies are often in response to a deficient parent to offspring ratio, when in the gay parent or parents assume responsibility for orphaned offspring as well as not contributing to the population increase that is putting stress on the population.

That is one of the most common roles you see homosexuality in mammals taking.

I'm not sure if I completely understand the point you are making. it sounds like you're saying homosexul tendancies result in response to the number of offspring a parent has "devicient parent/offspring ratio" I understand this to mean that the more offspring a parent has the more likely those kids will develop homosexual tendancies. If this is true, and is in fact the point you are making, then it is nothing but a correlation and really has nothing to do with biological factors. If homosexuality is more the result of the amount of siblings you have than it warrants no validity to our argument of the naturality of homosexuality as it is not biological.

No no, gay individuals raise children that otherwise would be neglected (or in many cases given up) because the burden on the biological parents is too great, all the while they are not contributing to the problem of overpopulation in the region or group.

Therefore, historically patterns of increased homosexuality is in relation to a strained population and resource availability.

I see, thanks for clearing that up for me, I understand what you are saying now. Just one more thing, "historically patterns of increased homosexuality is in relation to a strained population and resource availability." any source to this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
This is a pretty good one

I gave one of a few reasons that theorize why evolution uses homosexuality as a beneficial tool.

However i would stress that homosexual tendencies are not only biotic but memetic as well, they serve a purpose, however they are not ALL entirely as a result of biological adaptation. Moreover a social adaptation to changing circumstances within a tribe or community.

I feel the term "Natural" is often misused in regards to this subject, considering the definition cam mean a range of things, just by occurring reliably in nature it can be considered "Natural". Now, in regards to if it is beneficial to the species I would half to concur it is to some extent, so in both regards I find homosexuality natural.

Common? No, it is often the subject of fearful revulsion because it wasn't a prevalent concern. Homosexuals, up to about 30 years ago where closeted, though the behavior had been observed and people where aware of the behavior, it was considered a taboo, allowing for cognitive dissonance on the part of people who would otherwise be outraged by it.

Now with the press for civil rights, you see the people who are reluctant to the change rationalize their opposition to it with religion, False Dichotomies about the impact of homosexuality on morality, and pseudo-scientific explanations regarding the origins of the behavior.

I'm not sure how I implied that we evolved into a homosexual species, but it wasn't my intention. Homosexuality has remained relatively constant historically because the genes that cause it aren't harmful, not because they are better than the more common ones. It isn't a defect any more than red hair is because it doesn't create any problems.

But it clearly does, from a evolutionary standpoint. The fact that it weakens their tendency to procreate is a huge disadvantage to evolution. Comparing homosexuality to red hair is another huge logical fallacy. Don't pretend like homosexuality is some huge biological advantage.

It's not a biological advantage at all, that's what I just said. It does not cause problems in procreation, however, because of the findings in the article I cited above. The genes are being passed on even if homosexuals themselves aren't passing it. I would never suggest that an aversion to reproductive sex aids in procreation, but because of the factors in that article, the damage caused by homosexuality is offset enough that their numbers remain constant in proportion to the population.

If it were natural wouldn't homosexuals be able to procreate? Everything that doesn't work they way it's been designed by nature is unnatural. The very reason they're not in large numbers is because there is no natural way for homosexuals to exist more than their individual life spans. That's how I see it anyways...

Oh and in response to your above post... if an animal has homosexual sex 95% of the time would you consider them bisexual or homosexual? Even male couples adopt children and raise them or hire a surrogate, female couples will try to become pregnant through invetro or through sperm donation. It's in our DNA to preserve our species, but it's not in our DNA to be purely heterosexual.

No, it is 150% natural. like I said over 1,000 different species have been shown to exhibit homosexual behavior. Lions, geese, a majority of primates, it occurs in animals with a complex herd life. Nobody is sure WHY they do it, female primates engage in homosexual behavior to reinforce the troop bond. Female geese (not sure the exact species I don't feel like looking it up) will engage with homosexual behavior the majority of the time, and about 50% of them will engage in heterosexual sex one time during the season to procreate, then go about with the other females. Male lions will have homosexual sex to enforce their bonds as well.

Some scientists believe that when a population of animals becomes bigger, the younger males (usually the brothers of older males) will only engage in homosexual behavior and use the offspring (nieces and nefews) as surrogates for their own children and help raise them.

We are hard wired to believe that animals only have sex to procreate, which is far far far from the truth. They have sex for pleasure, they masturbate as we do, and they engage in homosexual sex as well. One does not need the ability to procreate to help the species survive if the species is expanding well on its own. Not every animal is like us, we don't have a once a year window to have babies, so they engage in different sexual behaviors in between the periods of fertility.

They don't display homosexual behaviour but rather bisexual. And it isn't natural as it actually harms the procreation of the species. Every animal lives to create offspring and continue the exsistence of their species... that is natural. I'm not saying gays are bad, but seing how you try to make it look like it's something normal really troubles me for some reason. And yes I probably will get red thumbs for this, but I really don't care.